Author
Topic: Nihil obstats, imprimaturs, and such (Read 3293 times)

Since it seems that a great many on this forum (including even myself) do not have a proper understanding of the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, I thought it would be useful to have a thread to clear everything up. Fr. Ambrose pointed out to me, for instance, that the nihil obstat is not actually issued by the bishop...only the imprimatur is. I found an interesting article on the subject. The bolded part is added by me for emphasis.

__________________________

The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."

If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of "Imprimi Potest," which means "it can be printed."

Nowadays, after the Imprimatur, you might see these words:

The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine. Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."

Bottom line: When buying books on religious and spiritual matters, seek out those books written before Vatican II and which have the "Imprimatur," or those books which are known to be written by solidly orthodox traditional Catholics. Otherwise, be wary and take the book with a grain of salt. And, always, if you come across a book that says horrific things about the Church, Her teachings, or Her history, read the traditional Catholic point of view and dig up objective resources. There's a lot of lying going on out there, folks.

So, unfortunately, anytime someone tries to tell us Catholics what we believe by citing a text carrying a nihil obstat and imprimatur, as if that proves that something is an official teaching of our Church, it does no such thing. It is good to read theological books, but if something doesn't seem right it is best to stick with the Church's magisterium for definite answers.

Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."[/b]

Could you give an example of such a watered-down book that has an imprimatur?

Logged

If you will, you can become all flame.Extra caritatem nulla salus.In order to become whole, take the "I" out of "holiness". सर्वभूतहितἌνω σχῶμεν τὰς καρδίας"Those who say religion has nothing to do with politics do not know what religion is." -- Mohandas GandhiY dduw bo'r diolch.

Since it seems that a great many on this forum (including even myself) do not have a proper understanding of the nihil obstat and the imprimatur, I thought it would be useful to have a thread to clear everything up. Fr. Ambrose pointed out to me, for instance, that the nihil obstat is not actually issued by the bishop...only the imprimatur is. I found an interesting article on the subject. The bolded part is added by me for emphasis.

__________________________

The Church, given teaching authority by Christ and as the conduit for fullness of Truth on this earth, has the obligation to preserve Her sheep from deviations from the Truth and to to guarantee them the "objective possibility of professing the true faith without error" (Catechism, No. 890). Because of this, the Bishops will look at books published by Catholics on Catholic matters in their dioceses, giving them their "okay" if nothing therein is found to be contrary to the Faith (relevant Canon Law: "Title IV: The Means of Social Communication," ¶ 822-832)

The procedure works like this: when a Catholic writes a book on faith, morals, theology, liturgy, books on prayer, editions of Sacred Scripture, etc., he will submit his manuscript to his diocese's Censor. If the Censor finds no problem with it, he will give it his stamp, which reads "Nihil Obstat," or "nothing stands in the way." He then sends it to the Bishop for his review. If the Bishop finds nothing objectionable, he gives the book his "Imprimatur" which means, "let it be printed."

If the Catholic writing the book is a member of a religious order, the manuscript is first sent to his religious superior before it is sent to the Censor and Bishop. If the religious superior finds no impediment to publication, he will give the book his stamp of "Imprimi Potest," which means "it can be printed."

Nowadays, after the Imprimatur, you might see these words:

The "Nihil Obstat" and "Imprimatur" are official declarations that a book or pamphlet is free of doctrinal or moral error. No implication is contained therein that those who have granted the Nihil Obstat and the Imprimatur agree with the content, opinions or statements expressed.

Please know that the presence of an Imprimatur does not mean that a book is an official text of the Church. It doesn't make the book the equivalent of an encyclical, say. It's not the approval of the work by the Pope or a dogmatic Council, and it's not a stamp of infallibility. It doesn't even mean that everything in the book is accurate, only that there is nothing in it that contradicts Catholic dogma. But, while occasionally a book sneaks through and its Imprimatur later recalled, this procedure is an important way for Catholics to increase their chances of staying error-free with regard to doctrine. Sadly, because of the triumph of modernsists and liberals in the human aspect of the Church since the Second Vatican Council, books which could well contain a watered-down theology, a warped view of History, etc. now do receive the "Imprimatur."

Sorry, if you let you name brand be used, you have to accept the consequences.

An encyclical is not an infallible statement (so it seems:we never can get a straight answer on "ex cathedra"), so saying it is not the equivalent of an encyclical isn't saying anything (except that the demand of Lumen Gentium that the Vatican's followers act as if their supreme pontiff is speaking infallibly even when he is not).

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.

Its usefulness for us is only that your "magisterium" has owned the work. The question of the usefulness of your "magisterium" remains.

Bottom line: When buying books on religious and spiritual matters, seek out those books written before Vatican II and which have the "Imprimatur," or those books which are known to be written by solidly orthodox traditional Catholics. Otherwise, be wary and take the book with a grain of salt. And, always, if you come across a book that says horrific things about the Church, Her teachings, or Her history, read the traditional Catholic point of view and dig up objective resources. There's a lot of lying going on out there, folks.

So, unfortunately, anytime someone tries to tell us Catholics what we believe by citing a text carrying a nihil obstat and imprimatur, as if that proves that something is an official teaching of our Church, it does no such thing. It is good to read theological books, but if something doesn't seem right it is best to stick with the Church's magisterium for definite answers.

That's great, if you are good at reading tea leaves.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

An encyclical is not an infallible statement (so it seems:we never can get a straight answer on "ex cathedra"), so saying it is not the equivalent of an encyclical isn't saying anything (except that the demand of Lumen Gentium that the Vatican's followers act as if their supreme pontiff is speaking infallibly even when he is not).

Encyclicals do not have to be ex cathedra when they uphold the Tradition of the Church. Humanae Vitae reiterated the sinfullness of artificial birth control, which even your Church was against before the 20th century.

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.

They may not be ex cathedra, but we are not free to just discard everything that is not ex cathedra. Ex cathedra pronouncements are the exception, not the rule. The most common way the Church teaches is through its magisterium and councils.

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

Since we are told that not everything in Infeffibilis Deus, Pastor Aeternus and Muncentissimus Deus is "infallible" (what is and is not "infallible" seems to be a carefully guarded secret). that not everything in the book is accurate doesn't say much either.

Its usefulness for us is only that your "magisterium" has owned the work. The question of the usefulness of your "magisterium" remains.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

Magisterium is not a who; it is a what. It is teaching authority. There are those who possess that authority but they are not the authority itself. The originating authority for all Christians is Jesus, Lord and Master of my life.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

Mary is probably the most erudite Catholic on the forum. Here is her understanding of “magisterium” and its operation as she interprets it in Lumen Gentium

Lumen Gentium:

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Mary's explanation of the text:

"Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith. It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error. It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin."

I myself would be hesitant to say that one must be obedient to the magisterium when it is in error.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

Mary is probably the most erudite Catholic on the forum. Here is her understanding of “magisterium” and its operation as she interprets it in Lumen Gentium

Lumen Gentium:

"This religious submission of mind and will must be shown in a special way to the authentic magisterium of the Roman Pontiff, even when he is not speaking ex cathedra; that is, it must be shown in such a way that his supreme magisterium is acknowledged with reverence, the judgments made by him are sincerely adhered to, according to his manifest mind and will.”~Dogmatic Constitution on the Church #25

Mary's explanation of the text:

"Actually the assent that is requested of the faithful is clearly stated as a religious assent which is not at all an assent of faith. It is the obedience one offers to a religious superior even when the novice, or brother, or monk knows that the superior is in error. It is an assent of respect for the office and an exercise of humility and obedience in all things but sin."

I myself would be hesitant to say that one must be obedient to the magisterium when it is in error.

I'm curious to know where Mary--I assume you mean elijahmaria--said this. A link to the pertinent post will suffice.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

yes, I'm very familiar with the term and the degrees of theological certitude etc., and have refered to, cited, etc. the dogmatic schema many a time.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating. It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating. It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating. It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.

If I'm not mistaken, an example would be an ecumenical council.

I am not sure. What an Ecumenical Council teaches, even if there are a 1000 bishops attending and agreeing, may be nullified by the Pope. Until the Pope has ratified each article of a Council the teachings have no authority. So this does not appear to be an exercise of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium producing infallible teaching.

What is a magisterium? What do the Catholics call a magisterium? Is there only one, or are their others?

When Catholics refer to the magisterium, it just means "the teaching authority of the Church." So, when the Pope and all the Bishops in communion with him gather together in an Ecumenical Council and define dogma, that is binding because it is magisterial teaching. The Catechism of the Catholic Church is filled with magisterial teachings.

I'm aware of this. However, the way Isa has been using 'magisterium' makes me wonder how familiar he is with the word.

I threw the number of magisteria out there to see if he was familiar with the understanding of extraordinary and ordinary magesterium (or even other discussions that break it down further).

I find the concept of the Ordinary Universal Magisterium quite fascinating. It is competent to produce infallible teachings *without* a magisterial definition.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

But I appreciate your release of my understanding here for publication:

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages. But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

This is an excellent question!!!!

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages. But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade. But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I did not notice Isa's message - and I only made a comment on the Catholic confusion because the Orthodox have been sharply criticised of late.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages. But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade. But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

So, like I asked before, Anton LaVey's "Satanic Bible" can get an imprimatur and nihil obstat?

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages. But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade. But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages. But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade. But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.

Is this supposed to be funny?

The only vocation you have mentioned is that of spiritual father. Is that not what you really meant? Are you speaking about his entering a minor seminary at 12 or 13? It was not uncommon in those days.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

I have also been doing this longer than most of them and have the direct guidance of a spiritual father who has been doing this at a local level for a whole lot longer than either you or I have been doing it.

My days of tertiary study are way back in the dark ages. But I am knocking 66 and presume your spiritual director is a decade or two older.

A decade. But he began his vocation in his early teens, so it's been his life for a good long time.

He must be quite remarkable, to commence a vocation as a spiritual director in his early teens.

Is this supposed to be funny?

The only vocation you have mentioned is that of spiritual father. Is that not what you really meant? Are you speaking about his entering a minor seminary at 12 or 13? It was not uncommon in those days.

I have referred to him on occasion as Father...and you know him to be a priest, so I was a bit taken aback by your comments.

There were other options besides minor seminary for young men who were trying to discern a call.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain? Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? If not, then why not?

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain? Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? If not, then why not?

Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain? Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? If not, then why not?

Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?

There is the formal teaching that she is immaculate for her entire life, by grace. Which is de facto the teaching on impeccability. There is also the formal teaching that her Magnificat was an act of her free will.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain? Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? If not, then why not?

Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?

There is the formal teaching that she is immaculate for her entire life, by grace. Which is de facto the teaching on impeccability. There is also the formal teaching that her Magnificat was an act of her free will.

So you cannot take one part of that to the exclusion of the other.

Fair enough.

Logged

You are right. I apologize for having sacked Constantinople. I really need to stop doing that.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be. Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be. Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching. We don't need to convince you al Misry. We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is permanent.

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Are you certain? Can one not find an infallible teaching in the Universal Ordinary Magisterium? If not, then why not?

Why is there not a magesterial teaching on whether Mary was impeccable? I dunno. Why is there not such a teaching on every single aspect of her life?

Since the Vatican has seen fit to dogmatize "in the first instance of her conception" to her "having completed the course of her earthly life" and beyond, it would seem the Vatican is in a mad dash to dogmatize every single aspect of her life.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth

Both the Imprimatur and Nihil Obstat, the first issued by the local ordinary and the latter issued by the diocesan censor who is delegated by the bishop and can be ANYONE of that bishop's choosing, carry no real weight beyond the see of the local ordinary issuing the declaration and the release.

So no matter what you say or anyone else says, the release to publish is predicated on the question of whether or not the text EXPLICITLY and PURPOSEFULLY does harm to the faith: which are the formal elements of heresy by the way: and it is a release that only bears any real weight within that bishops sphere of influence which is his local see.

It was NEVER meant, and is not meant to be a blanket statement that everything in the text is formally true and formally the teaching of the Church.

Well, at least you do have accurate knowledge about this. As you'll have seen a couple of our Catholic posters did not.

Yes...because getting the nihil obstat and imprimatur mixed up is totally shameful. Father, you still haven't answered my question. Why didn't you correct ialmisry when he was equating nihil obstats and imprimaturs with magisterial teaching? Such a beacon of truth as yourself would surely find such a gross misrepresentation appalling, no?

I never equated nihil obstat and imprimaturs with magisterial teachings, as I have repeatedly pointed out nailing down what is the Vatican's "magisterial teaching" is like nailing jello to the floor.

Nope. The reason you are so frustrated is that you are looking for a magesterial teaching when there is not one on the particular issue that spawned this discussion.

Frustrated? LOL. If I took the Vatican's claims seriously, and had to harmonize them, and with reality, maybe I would be. Not having that burden, I have no source of frustration in whatever it wants to put its seal of approval (or whatever you claim its stamp means to you:my point is that the magisterial teaching means nothing) on.

I see this as being much the same thing as Orthodox weasel words failing to convince so many Protestants who challenge Orthodox teaching. We don't need to convince you al Misry. We are not trying to convert you, and we realize your disdain is a permanent.

yes, so many Protestants are blown away by the weasel words "imprimatur," "nihil obstat" and "ex cathedra."

As for Protestants challenging Orthodox teaching, I've known too many who finally came around decades later to worry too much about that.

Logged

Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.A hasty quarrel kindles fire,and urgent strife sheds blood.If you blow on a spark, it will glow;if you spit on it, it will be put out; and both come out of your mouth